Archive for category: Fees

You are here: / Fees

Heads California, Tails Carolina… Employer Considerations Following Wave of 401(k) Forfeiture Lawsuits

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Over the past year, numerous employers and their 401(k) plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding how forfeited employer contributions to their 401(k) plan are utilized.  This wave of lawsuits began approximately a year ago when a plaintiff’s law firm filed putative class action lawsuits raising this novel claim against multiple large employers, including Intuit, Clorox, and Thermo Fisher Scientific in California federal courts.  Since then, this claim has been included in numerous 401(k) plan lawsuits even though none of these lawsuits have reached a final judgment on the merits and only five have had decisions on motions to dismiss.

These lawsuits allege that the employer and its 401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), by using forfeited employer contributions to the 401(k) plan to offset future employer contributions instead of using the forfeited amounts to offset 401(k) plan expenses that were charged to participant accounts.  The plaintiff’s counsel alleges that the employer and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are violating ERISA’s fiduciary requirements to make decisions for the benefit of plan participant because the employer benefits from a reduction in its future employer contributions at the expense of plan participants who have to pay for certain expenses that are charged to their 401(k) accounts. Read more

Hole in the Bottle… Employer Considerations After Another Lawsuit Against an Employer Health Plan

/in , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Last week, former Wells Fargo employees filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and its health plan fiduciaries alleging that Wells Fargo’s self-funded health plan violated ERISA by paying its pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) excessive administrative fees and excessive fees for prescription drugs. This lawsuit appears to be similar to a lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson and its health plan fiduciaries earlier this year. Both lawsuits allege that the health plan paid its PBM exponentially more for certain prescription drugs than the price charged by certain retail pharmacies for the same drugs. Coincidentally, both lawsuits indicate the health plans are funded through a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) trust. See our prior blog post for more information on the heightened health plan fiduciary standards that may be driving these lawsuits. Read more

Vacation, All I Ever Wanted – But Don’t Forget Your July Compliance Deadlines

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

Congratulations! You made it to summer, that wonderful time of year when things at work (hopefully) slow down a bit and you’re able to take some well-deserved time off. Though before you Go-Go(‘s) (do you see what I did there?), be sure your July employee benefits compliance deadlines are covered.

July 29 – Summary of Material Modifications (SMM) – Were any of your organization’s plans materially amended last year? If so, you may be required to furnish an SMM to participants (or a revised summary plan description). Those SMMs must be provided no later than 210 days after the end of the plan year in which the change was adopted. So, for a 2023 change, the SMM deadline would fall on July 29 (you get an extra day this year because 210 days falls on July 28, a weekend). Read more

The Time Has Come, A Fact’s A Fact: Consider Adding a Welfare Plan Committee

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The time may have come to add a welfare plan committee to your company’s governance of employee benefit plans. New legal obligations and other developments impose fiduciary risks for welfare plans similar to what already exist for retirement plans.

Most employers that sponsor a 401(k) plan or other retirement plan set up a committee to administer and oversee the plan. This is generally a best practice to ensure that the plan is properly administered in compliance with employee benefits laws and, for plans subject to the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to have a process for following ERISA fiduciary duties. Fiduciary duties include acting prudently and in the best interests of participants, such as in overseeing service providers and monitoring plan fees. Read more

Should I Pay Or Should I No(t) Now: Which Expenses Can be Paid with Plan Assets?

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

One question that often comes up is whether an expense related to an ERISA plan can be paid with plan assets. The decision of whether to use ERISA plan assets to pay an expense is an ERISA fiduciary decision. With the recent IRS guidance clarifying the timing of use of forfeitures, this question may come up even more.[1] Using plan assets inappropriately is a fiduciary breach and subject to possible DOL and IRS penalties. It is important to have a fiduciary process in place for reviewing expenses and determining whether a payment is proper. Read more

How Much is that (Investment) in the Window…A Higher Level of Fiduciary Oversight Could be Required for 401(k) Plan Brokerage Windows

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

Fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and other retirement plans know that they must prudently monitor the investment options available to participants in the plan, but are they monitoring participants’ investments made through a plan’s brokerage window? Recent commentary from the Department of Labor (DOL) on cryptocurrency investments suggests maybe fiduciaries should be – and that the DOL may check in on that soon.[i]

A “brokerage window” or “self-directed brokerage account” can allow participants access to a broad array of investments beyond the regular investment menu under the plan. Most plan fiduciaries have not paid much attention to the actual brokerage window investments. This is not surprising given the DOL’s relative lack of focus on the matter. The DOL had issued guidance in 2012 that the investment disclosure portion of the fee disclosure rules could apply to brokerage window investments in certain cases but after pushback due to the administrative burdens, the DOL withdrew that guidance. In 2014 the DOL issued a Request for Information about brokerage window practices but no further guidance was issued. Read more

The Tide is High…Keep Holding On For More Retirement Plan Fee Litigation

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Hughes v. Northwestern University will do nothing to stem the rising tide of retirement plan fee litigation. But the ruling doesn’t mean fiduciary breach claims are more likely to be successful either. Instead, the Court kept its ruling very narrow: a broad investment menu with some prudent funds will not automatically mean the fiduciaries are off the hook for offering imprudent funds.

 

The plaintiffs in Hughes were participants in two 403(b) retirement plans sponsored by Northwestern University. The participants brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the University, the retirement plan committee, and the individuals who administered the plans. The participants alleged the fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by: (1) allowing recordkeeping fees that were too high; (2) allowing plan investments with excessive investment fees; and (3) providing participants too many investment options (over 400!) which resulted in participant confusion and poor investment decisions. Read more

Here We Go Again, PCORI’s Back in Town

/in , , , ,

By Benjamin Gibbons

For those employers that sponsor a self-insured health plan, it’s important to be aware that the deadline for your 2021 PCORI filing is August 2, 2021. This deadline applies for plan years ending on December 31, 2020 (or any others between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021).  If you haven’t yet made your PCORI filing on IRS Form 720, we recommend doing so as soon as possible. Read more

Tell Me More, Tell Me More…Fee Disclosures are Coming for Group Health Plans

/in , ,

by Brenda Berg

One of the employee benefits items tucked into the recently-passed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “Act”) will soon require group health plan service providers to issue fee disclosures.

Service providers to retirement plans have been required to provide fee disclosures – the ERISA 408(b)(2) disclosures – to plan sponsors for the past 10 years. The disclosures are part of the “reasonable compensation” exemption that keeps the arrangement from being a prohibited transaction. Until now, the 408(b)(2) fee disclosure rules have not applied to health and welfare plans; the “No Surprises Act” portion of the Act changes that next year. Read more

We Interrupt This Program – Is a Multiple Employer Plan In Your Future?

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

We interrupt our usual Benefits Dial programming – to take a closer look at developments affecting multiple employer plans (MEPs) as part of our series of posts on the recently enacted benefit plan legislation, including the SECURE Act (background here).  The reform to MEPs is seen by many as the biggest disruptor to the retirement plan industry.  Why?  It facilitates the banding together of retirement plan assets from unrelated employers, helping employers punch above their weight.  By combining together to form a larger plan, smaller employers can leverage assets with regard to plan services, and maybe most importantly, investment fees paid by participants. 

MEPs have long been permitted but many employers have been unwilling to participate in those plans.  The biggest deterrent has been the “one bad apple rule.”   That rule provides that a defect in any participating employer’s portion of the MEP can impact the tax qualification of the entire MEP for other participating employers.  In other words, if one participating employer in the MEP is unwilling (or maybe unable) to correct an error, the whole plan can be disqualified by the IRS.  The SECURE Act helps solve this issue with a special kind of MEP called a pooled employer plan (PEP).  PEPs have a specific procedure for dealing with tax qualification defects.  In short, a participating employer in a PEP who refuses to correct the error, can be discharged (spun off) from the PEP to isolate the disqualification impact. The SECURE Act grants relief under ERISA to boot.  Historically, MEPs were treated as a collection of separate plans unless the underlying employers met a commonality standard.  A PEP (called a “Group of Plans” under ERISA) is also treated as a single plan for ERISA purposes under the SECURE Act.  This means, for example, that such plans would be allowed to file a single Form 5500. 

Read more